Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

Rumraket wrote:Leroy, what is it about your religious faith that requires you to insist that God could not have created a universe where life can arise through it's created laws?

You believe God created the universe and fine-tuned it's laws to allow the existence of life, right? Could God have used those same laws to bring life about too? If not, why?

Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible, it seems as if God created natural mechanisms to make this as evidently true as it can possible be.

Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

leroy wrote:Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible

What data is that?

leroy wrote:Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

Literally everything would be different, as the impossibility of abiogenesis would require a total rewrite of the laws of physics. Nothing about the known laws of physics says abiogenesis is impossible. At worst, at worst, they would say it is a very unlikely event if we imagine abiogenesis to constitute a statistical fluke where everything required for a complex living cell came together in a single event.

But even such an event is not prohibited by physics. Even in the very worst case scenario (that everything had to happen at once in a single event), the laws of physics as we know them can only say that the origin of life is unlikely.

If you want to argue the origin of life is impossible, you're going to have to completely change the laws of physics. In a universe where all the laws of physics are different, nothing we see around us would be the way it is now.

To make the origin of life physically impossible, you would have to create laws of physics that are completely deterministic down to the subatomic level, and you'd have to set up the initial conditions such that all the future events were such that at no point in the future could the right kinds of things ever come together at the right time and place to result in a living entity.

But everything we know about physics tells us that it is entirely possible, through it might be unlikely, for the right kinds of things to come together in the right place and result in a living entity. Abiogenesis is strictly physically possible even in the worst chance-based scenario we can dream of.

leroy wrote:Of course God could have done that, and I would not have nay theological issues with that. But it seems that such natural laws were not created. Every single bit of data that we have suggests that natural abiogenesis is impossible

What data is that?

leroy wrote:Honestly if you where God and you wanted to create a universe and laws, where it is evident for any observer that natural abiogenesis can´t happen, how would your universe be different from this universe?

Literally everything would be different, as the impossibility of abiogenesis would require a total rewrite of the laws of physics. Nothing about the known laws of physics says abiogenesis is impossible. At worst, at worst, they would say it is a very unlikely event if we imagine abiogenesis to constitute a statistical fluke where everything required for a complex living cell came together in a single event.

But even such an event is not prohibited by physics. Even in the very worst case scenario (that everything had to happen at once in a single event), the laws of physics as we know them can only say that the origin of life is unlikely.

If you want to argue the origin of life is impossible, you're going to have to completely change the laws of physics. In a universe where all the laws of physics are different, nothing we see around us would be the way it is now.

To make the origin of life physically impossible, you would have to create laws of physics that are completely deterministic down to the subatomic level, and you'd have to set up the initial conditions such that all the future events were such that at no point in the future could the right kinds of things ever come together at the right time and place to result in a living entity.

But everything we know about physics tells us that it is entirely possible, through it might be unlikely, for the right kinds of things to come together in the right place and result in a living entity. Abiogenesis is strictly physically possible even in the worst chance-based scenario we can dream of.

To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

leroy wrote:To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

If we imagine everything had to come together at the same instant to make a modern cell, sure. But did life actually begin like that?

But even then, it is not impossible. So you were wrong, we have zero data that says abiogenesis is impossible even in the very worst case scenario.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway, so it is an irrelevancy. Literally nobody is seriously advancing the tornado-in-a-junkyard theory.

leroy wrote:This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?

leroy wrote:To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

If we imagine everything had to come together at the same instant to make a modern cell, sure. But did life actually begin like that?

But even then, it is not impossible. So you were wrong, we have zero data that says abiogenesis is impossible even in the very worst case scenario.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway, so it is an irrelevancy. Literally nobody is seriously advancing the tornado-in-a-junkyard theory.

leroy wrote:This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?

We are talking about a similar situation, this is why I presented this analogy, both natural abiogénesis and ice emerging from boiling water are not literally impossible but extremely unlikely and for every practical purpose we can say that it can’t happen. This is fundamentally a statistical problem.

Boiling water is hot because most molecules are hot, but there are a few isolated molecules that are “cold” (as cold as ice) any intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) with the appropriate tools could in theory cherry pick and select all the cold molecules, put them together and create ice.

Statistical problems are not a problem for intelligent designers, intelligent designers can willingly chose an unlikely combination, and this is why intelligent designers can create low entropy form high entropy. Therefore if you ever see ice emerging from boiling water, design (natural or supernatural) would be your best explanation.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway,

ok Would you at least admit that intelligent design ( natural or supernatural) is a better explanation than what you call the “worst possible scenario” ?

Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

Someone pissing the door might not be so extraordinary, but pissing the door and not remember it is extraordinary, especially when that individual usually doesn’t piss doors. Faking a video is also extraordinary, but in my opinion more or ordinary that the first scenario.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:. in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation[

Asserting that there is a better explanation does not imply that I am denying the evidence

loroy wrote:Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

One wonders what do you personally mean by “accepting the evidence” I am saying (in red letters) that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than without the video, if this doesn’t count as “accepting the evidence” then one wonders what would count as “accepting the evidence”

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

Someone pissing the door might not be so extraordinary, but pissing the door and not remember it is extraordinary, especially when that individual usually doesn’t piss doors. Faking a video is also extraordinary, but in my opinion more or ordinary that the first scenario.

Well, if they have a memory as bad as yours, than it would also be mundane. Beyond that, we do not know if you do not remember, at this point you are simply denying doing it. That could mean that you do not remember or that you are just lying, and both of those are mundane.

Beyond that, you now think that faking a video is as mundane as someone not remembering or lying? You honestly do not have a very firm grasp of reality, now do you?

leroy wrote:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:. in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation[

Asserting that there is a better explanation does not imply that I am denying the evidence

Your assertion includes the claim of the video being fake. Dandan/Leroy, you wrote that you would argue that the video is fake. Saying something is fake is denying it. How pathetic can one person get? This is just getting sad.

leroy wrote:

loroy wrote:Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

One wonders what do you personally mean by “accepting the evidence” I am saying (in red letters) that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than without the video, if this doesn’t count as “accepting the evidence” then one wonders what would count as “accepting the evidence”

Because you are going against what you have said before. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." What you said in red is you trying to have your cake and eat it to. As I mocked before, "Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it." That is what you are saying. Again, look at all the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through when you could have just been honest from the start.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Even when you wrote the statement down, one can see that we are not making the same amount of assumptions. "... you are assuming that there is a real chemical law1 capable of creating life..." That is one assumption. Compared to, "... I am assuming that there is a designer1 capable of creating life2..." That is two assumptions. First you are assuming a designer, than you are also assuming that this designer can create life. Thus, using parsimony, mine is superior.

You are assuming:1 that the simulations represent a real mechanism

2 that this mechanism was responsible for abiogenesis

Let it go, we are making the same number of assumptions.

leroy wrote:My analogy was not mean to be related to parsimony, but anyway, why us that a terrible analogy?

These 2 sentences seem to be analogous (if not why not)

1 “We know that elephants exists, we know nothing about dark energy therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the expansion of the universe.

2 “We know that chemistry exists, we know nothing about “intelligent designers therefore chemistry is a better explanation for the origin of life than ID”

Where does the analogy fail?

hwn wrote:An elephant is a small part of biology, whereas chemistry is a whole field of science. Do you honestly not see that?

Really is that the reason why you think the analogy fails, well change elephants for “Chemistry” by your logic Chemical reactions are a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than dark energy, because we know that chemical reactions exists and we know nothing about dark energy.

Why don’t you simply let it go and admit that your logic is flawed.

hwn wrote:. All anyone has ever said is that nature is a far better solution than magic.

But you haven’t done anything to support that assertion,

hwn wrote:Right, magic explains everything. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it is something special is telling.

Even if that were true, there are still objective ways that would prove that “nature” is a better explanation than magic.

hwn wrote:Right, that gap your Jesus exists in is shrinking.

That is cute, can you support your assertion?

pretty much the only contribution that science has provided in the field of abiogenesis, is proving that the “origin of life problem” is more difficult than previously thought.

The number new problems being discovered outperforms the number of problems that have been solved. Even the authors of your paper have “discovered” more problems than the amount of problems that they have solved.

If you think that gaps are getting smaller as science progresses you are wrong

hwn wrote:I love this, you are basically asking me to agree with a tautology. "If there is a magic sky fairy that can create life, than it is most likely what created life." Do you honestly think you are making a good argument? However, yes, I agree with this counter-factual

Well that is how the criteria of “explanatory power works” when comparing 2 hypothesis one assumes that both are true and the hypothesis that provides a better explanation wins

How about explanatory scope:

leroy wrote:4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained

your answer:

To bad you have no evidence for your admitted un-falsifiable speculation. Thus, mine is better in this case as well. Again, you have nothing but fairy dust and star wishes. Mine is actually based on chemistry and reality

Your reply is irrelevant, the criteria of explanatory scope assumes that 2 hypothesis are true, and the one who can explain more independent things wins

The main reason why most cosmologists accept inflation is because it has lots of explanatory scope, it explains at least 3 independent problems. There is no independnent evidence for the inflation nor there is any known mechanism that could produce such expansion, but the strong explanatory scope that this theory has, seems to be enough to convince most cosmologists.

“Jesus” also has lots of explanatory scope, by assuming the existence of a designer many independent problems would be solved.

Your theory wouldn’t solve any other problem; the existence of those “cores” would not solve any other mystery. And it would not even solve the origin of life problem (only a small and secondary portion of it)

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Because you are going against what you have said before. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." What you said in red is you trying to have your cake and eat it to. As I mocked before, "Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it." That is what you are saying. Again, look at all the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through when you could have just been honest from the start.

Metal gymnastics is a resoult of you being unable to admit that you lied.

Your original claim:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic

The truth:I would not deny the evidence, I would not deny that the video is there I would not deny that the video provides strong evidence (just not sufficient) for me pissing the door and I would grant that the “me pissing the door hypothesis” might be true, given that we have the video.

I would reject the conclusion “therefore I pissed the door” not because it suites me, but because me having amnesia and forgetting such an event would be an extraordinary claim, and a single video would not be strong enough to compensate for it.

We can start a new conversation on whether if a video should count as enough evidence or not, and of course the conclusions would depend largely on the background information that we have (is the quality of the video good? Was I drunk? Was there anyone with a good reason to fake the video etc. ) but this conversation would be irrelevant. I is still la fact that you lied.

he_who_is_nobody wrote: we do not know if you do not remember, at this point you are simply denying doing it.

At least I would know that I am not lying, that is the main point that I was doing in the other thread.

Sure from the point of view of an external observer, and given that we have a video, it would be almost certainly sure that I pissed the door, and that my negations are just lies.

But from my point of view I would know that I am not l lying. From my point of view there are only 2 extraordinary alternatives.

Ether I have amnesia and did something that I usually don’t do, or someone faked the video, I would say that the second is more probably true, but I would not deny that the first might also be true.

Rumraket wrote:I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?

We are talking about a similar situation, this is why I presented this analogy, both natural abiogénesis and ice emerging from boiling water are not literally impossible but extremely unlikely and for every practical purpose we can say that it can’t happen.

For practical purposes we can also say that living entities can't be wished into existence. Thoughts just don't have that kind of power. Everything in our experience tells us that to interact with the physical world you need a physical body. Invoking magical powers of thought and wishing to explain the unexplained not only lacks evidential support, it contradicts the evidence we have.

leroy wrote:Statistical problems are not a problem for intelligent designers, intelligent designers can willingly chose an unlikely combination

No known intelligent designer can make an ice cube appear from boiling water. We're not talking about placing bricks in a particular arrangement, we're talking about catching particular molecules out of a liquid. I don't see how that is possible. How are you going to identify which molecules are "cold" without exciting them? Your solution isn't a solution, it's just made up nosense.

Ironally it seems to me the only physically possible explanation, in so far as an ice-cube ever did appear from boiling water, would be chance.

leroy wrote:and this is why intelligent designers can create low entropy form high entropy.

Again with this entropy nonsense. Low entropy comes from high entropy all the time, no intelligent designers required. Leave your toast too long in the toaster and it turns black. That black material is incredibly complex, low entropy material.

leroy wrote:Therefore if you ever see ice emerging from boiling water, design (natural or supernatural) would be your best explanation.

Actually I would have no explanation for it, other than a statistical fluke of thermodynamics.

leroy wrote:

Rumraket wrote:But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway,

ok Would you at least admit that intelligent design ( natural or supernatural) is a better explanation than what you call the “worst possible scenario” ?

Not at all. Simply uttering the words intelligent design isn't an explanation. In order for intelligent design to constitute an actual explanation it's going to need a mechanism that explains what I see and why it is the way it is (the part of the explanation that explains, not merely asserts "and then X caused Y to appear". Which means knowing something about the designer and how it operates.

If you don't have that, then you don't have an explanation. You just have what could be called an account, or a just-so story. At best it would be a description of a chain of events. First X happened, then Y followed, then Z came last. That's not an explanation, that's a story, an account. An explanation would be where you explain how or why Y followed X, and lead to Z, by invoking some sort of mechanism that obeys laws, forces, constraints and initial conditions.